The Roman Catholic Church has recently decreed a “zero-tolerance” policy regarding priests who molest children. Who can argue with that, right? But, that it took the church hundreds of years to make that statement – or that the statement had to be made at all – leaves us utterly dumbfounded.<p>The Catholic Church is currently embroiled in a huge scandal over sexual abuse of children by priests and the apparent cover-up of those cases by church officials. About 180 of the nation’s 46,000 Roman Catholic priests now face accusations of child sexual abuse. Statistically, that’s less than one-half of one percent of priests in the United States. But statistics don’t show the kind of trauma inflicted on the victims of this abuse.<p>Even here in our small community we’ve been touched by the scandal. David Malsch, a pastor at St. Mary’s parish in Tomahawk, was convicted in 1993 of having improper sexual relations with a Tomahawk boy. It turned out that Malsch had quite a history of sexual misdeeds dating back many years. The diocese had sent him for treatment and moved him to a new community whenever accusations arose. Each time he was moved, Malsch was again placed in a position where he had direct supervision of young people. <p>As the scandal spreads across the country, the church’s handling of the Malsch case appears to be the rule rather than the exception. Bishops who should have known better are now saying they didn’t recognize child molestation as a crime back in the 1970s and ‘80s. Surely they must have recognized it as a grievous sin. <p>Pope John Paul II said in April that there is no room in the Church for abusive priests. He called child abuse by priests a sin and a crime.<p>That it has taken so long for the Vatican to make that statement is what’s particularly troubling. <p>The church has had plenty of opportunities to come clean. Scandals involving sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests have flared up around the country several times before. In 1997, an estimated 800 priests had been accused of molesting children.<p>The violation of a child’s innocence is doubly despicable at the hands of a priest, who is in a position of trust and power. Cases such as Malsch fit the classic profile of a sexual predator, exploiting that trust to satisfy his own perverse sexual desires. That it took many victims so long to come forward speaks to the amount of power these priests held over them.<p>Better late than never, the Roman Catholic Church is now taking a tough stance against pervert priests. <p>The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will meet in Dallas next month to discuss a binding national policy on how to deal with accusations of sexual misconduct by priests. They have an opportunity to restore faith in the church that has been shaken by all these accusations and coverups. After all, if you can’t trust a priest, who can you trust?

In my opinion, any type of work that restricts a person from marriage and the wonderful bliss of lovemaking should be outawed. What do you think would happen if you had a lifetime of sexual tension pinned up inside. I'm not by any means defending the bastages, but maybe someone at the confrence in Dallas should inform all of the "spiritual leaders" that sex is human nature, and not to be repressed. The Catholic church should create a new holiday. They can call it anti-molestation day and all priests of the world can go get freaky. That'll straight em' out! no pun intended.

One of the tenets of the church was that sex should be suppressed because it is human nature and we should aspire to a higher god-like nature. At least that was the story for the flock. It's all crap of course. Over the last two thousand years the catholic church has done more harm than good and trying to clean up its image is a waste of time. Civilization would be better off without it.

Blanard and Zeus, are you saying that no sexually active person, homo or heteralsexual, has ever molested a child? As far as the chuch harming civilization, I would argue that non-religious forms of authority such as communism, fascism, and dictatorships have cused civilization more harm than all religions combined.

>>>Blanard and Zeus, are you saying that no sexually active person, homo or heteralsexual, has ever molested a child? <<<<p>The largest percentage of those who sexually abuse minors are married, heterosexual males. Every religious group has within its rank those who sexually abuse children. People in Tomahawk might remember that around the same time as David Malsch was arrested a married Lutheran pastor in town had to leave his position because of sexual misconduct with a minor. <p>Anyone who sexually abuses children is the lowest form of life, they are pond scum. The media needs to report on more of the other cases. You periodically read about them but because other sexual abusers don't take a vow of celibacy it doesn't sell as many papers. I have read reports of Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian,Methodist, Orthodox Jewish, Mormon, and all varieties of fundamentalists who have been charged with child sexual abuse. The fact remains that the vast majority of Catholic priests are not pedophiles, just as the vast majority of other clergy are not either. The minority who are need to be defrocked, sent to jail, and never allowed contact with minors again.<p>Nell

Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

I concur with Nell's assessment. It always amazes me when people think that if their children are taught by a homosexual teacher that their children will be in great danger of molestation moreso than if taught by a heterosexual.<p>[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Zeus ]</p>

Rod, the issue we are discussing is molestation in the clergy, not politics. I never said that clergymen are the ONLY molesters, the point i was trying to make is that sexual repression PROBABLY has something to do with it. Next time you give a history lesson, research a comparison of wars fought over religion versus politics. I think you'll be surprised. Nell, since i know nothing about the statistics of child-molestation, I'm sure you know more than I. However, the issue of molestation in the clergy is obviously a serious problem considering it is posted not only on this website, but all over the news. When I was in 7th grade, my Lutheran school closed, and my choices were a public school, or a nearby lutheran school of the same synod as the school that closed. I am glad I chose public, because I found out later that the pastor/gym teacher was sitting in a chair naked while making the children do jumping jacks.(the children were naked too) That one didnt even make the news. I'm sure that when a church community comes together to hide the facts and protect the church's reputation, the statistics are left in the dark. But like i said, I'm not an expert.

The war and religion thing is bogus demagoguery. The major part of the world practices some sort of religion. Check it out.http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html<p> It’s the same as suggesting that folks with ears fight most wars so let’s rid the planet of ears. Asinine huh? So is the idea that religion is the cause of wars. People are the cause of wars. People of all sorts of religious beliefs. Now what I will accept is the idea that “bigots” that practice religious purity or racial purity are a major problem But it’s too easy to suggest that there is an old “Crusades” effect that still exists in the majority of the world. <p>As for the “Civilization would be better off without it” statement, I’m not sure if the poster was suggesting the Catholic religion on all religion. But it seems to me that whipping out 1.06 billion Catholics because a few priest are perverts seems a bit on the radical side. <p>On the issue of sexual suppression being the cause? How does this work? If I suppress my desire to fish does that mean I’m likely to go out and molest a fish? If I suppress my desire to eat, are pizzas in jeopardy? I don’t buy it either. Responsible, normal people behave in responsible fashion. I’m not giving them any phony baloney excesses that suppression is the fault. That’s too easy.

Zeus, you and Blanard were critisizing the church on it's requiremnet of celibacy by priests. By posting those remarks in reply to the webmasters original post you give the impression that it is your belief that celibacy is the cause of priests molesting minors. I simply stated that if celibacy were the cause, than noone practicing sex would ever molest a minor. It dosn't take a scientific study to know that that isn't the case. True, celibacy goes against human nature, but religions also teach us to not be greedy, hateful, seek revenge, uncaring, etc. which also goes against human nature.

JFlosum,lmao at your fish molesting comment. To clear the air, I don't believe that sexual repression is the only cause of sex crimes, but I find it hard to believe that it has nothing to do with it. Yes, greed, hate, etc. are also human nature, but it is a matter of opinion when deciding whether sex is something worth repressing or not. Some consider it mentally unhealthy to refrain from sexual activity, but I suppose that depends on how horny you are. I dont think anyone will argue with me when I say that these priests probably had these sick desires well before they decided to join the church, in fact they may have joined the clergy so that "god" would help them suppress the desires.(or at least make them feel "holier") I probably should not even post responses to this, because I am extremely biased against organized church. Too many people adopt the "holier than thou" attitude which I feel goes against everything religion is supposed to stand for. Priests are human and capable of disgusting acts, but how can you know before it happens. "I know a guy who can make you a priest for ten dollars. Some guys steal your money, but these guys, they steal your hearts."

JFlosum, what Im trying to say is that different groups of people fight over core beliefs, religion being one of them. You don't feel that religion breeds hate? September 11th had nothing to do with religion, huh?

Millions of people world wide practice the same religion as the 9/11 perps, and are not flying planes into buildings. I have a number of friends that do, and they denounce the 9/11 action and are more militant on the reprisal then I am… and I’m very militant! <p>I am not a religious person, not even close. But I support religion and those that practice religion as it meant to be. I do not condemn all religion or the religious for the actions of a few. It’s the same as the gun issue. I support guns but not using guns for committing crimes. Millions (most) of gun owners are law abiding people. But the few that are not do not make the rest of us criminals.

What religion is that? The Temple of We Hate Tall Buildings? The Church of Fly’em ’til We Die?<p>Those nuts are not practicing religion, they are practicing hate. Some warped sense of religion is only the tool that the leaders are using to brainwash these morons. You seen them laughing about having been able to talk those guys into crashing into the WTC. I don’t think there are many Muslims lining up to fly a plane into a building. Not compared to the millions of them in the world. Most of the world ‘s scholars that study the Muslim faith and the Koran will tell you that this sort of nonsense just isn’t part of their belief. You think Kareem Abdul Jabbar (sp?) is thinking of flying himself off to die in a blaze of glory? How about Muhammad Ali?<p>I might buy cult. Major difference. And what about these nuts that hear God telling them to kill their neighbors? O r worse yet, their own families? You believe that’s religion too?<p>When you say, “Of course they were radicals, but every sect of religion has them.” We’re back to getting rid of folks with ears; or is it just ears we get rid of?<p>9/11 was not about religion. It‘s about hate and haters willing to use anything they can including people’s weaknesses and yes even religion, to carry out dastardly deeds. But it‘s not about religion.